I recently traveled to Piura, Peru to give a keynote lecture at the Peruvian National Academy of Medicine’s regional scientific conference. My talk, “Climate change and childhood diarrhea: implications for Peru”, focused on an aspect of climate change that may impact morbidity in Peru in the coming decades: the fact that higher temperatures have historically been associated with increased rates of diarrheal disease. Along with our collaborators at Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Emory University, and the Peruvian ministries of Health, Statistics/Informatics, and the Environment, we have been examining whether this temperature-diarrhea relationship also holds in Peru, and examining the implications and possible mitigation strategies for the various regions of the country under potential climate change scenarios. ​Evidence of climate change affecting health and well-being was tangibly apparent in Piura, where extreme floodingled to several deaths and widespread destruction in early 2017. The roads and surroundings in Piura remain visibly changed since my last visit in 2016. Climate change can manifest in an increase of instances of extreme weather events, and may strengthen El Niño events, which is of particular concern to Peru. Such events can have multiple types of impacts on public health, as was the focus of several talks on the conference agenda . It was remarkable to me at the conference how many aspects of life can be affected by these changes. For example, Dr. Andrés G. Lescano reported on his work studying post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms after the flooding in Piura, and also has ongoing research into the effects of El Niño on childhood stunting. It was an eye-opening trip in which the impacts of climate change were apparent to me not only in the scientific presentations, but in my conversations with colleagues who were impacted by the flooding, including one person who worked in the overwhelmed clinics during that time. This underscored to me the importance of continuing to examine the impact of climate change on human health, both mentally and physically, and working with those affected to explore possible mitigation strategies.

​The microbial world has lost one of the greats. Stan Falkow passed awayon May 5, 2018. I say the microbial world because he considered the world from a microbial point of view. In my course I tell my students to "Think like a pathogen," and that was a perspective that he embodied. David Relmantold the New York Times "He had an intuitive understanding of how a microbe might view a human."

In the 1970s he discovered plasmids as the mechanism of transfer of genetic material conferring antibiotic resistance to bacteria, and later that finding extended into understanding horizontal gene transfer of genetic material associated with causing disease in the host. This work laid the foundation for much of the research that we do in the Pooper Scooper lab, in the areas of the epidemiology of antibiotic resistance and microbial pathogenesis. Some of his first work on virulence factors focused on mobile genetic elements that encode a toxin from a diarrhea-causing E. coli. His Nature obituary states that "The question that framed Falkow’s career was: what is a pathogen? Specifically, what makes some microbes disease agents, while others are innocuous or even beneficial?" This is one of the fundamental questions that we are asking, using an epidemiological perspective, in our new cohort study in Ecuador.

He also sets an example that I can only hope to emulate on simultaneously thinking big while also going deep by doing robust research. His paper with Marty Blaser on the disappearing microbiotawas one of the first papers I read on the microbiome, and very influential to my thought in this area (although we are focused on converse question... what are the benefits of a diverse microbiota).

I particularly admire his track record of mentoring. He trained hundreds of scientists, many of whom have gone on to impressive scientific careers. I hope that I can similarly share my passions with the students who pass through my research group.

The microbes will no doubt recycle his biomass, and the generations of scientists who follow him will recycle and build upon the ideas that he put forth into the world.

Having been the lone female in many of her advanced math and science classes before going on to obtain her master’s in engineering from Oxford University, Angela Saini is no stranger to women being underrepresented in science. The topics of women being both under- and misrepresented in the realm of science is the focus of her recent book, Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong—and the New Research That's Rewriting the Story. In this book, Saini tackles several controversial perceived differences between the sexes, ranging from children's toy preferences (e.g., dolls vs. trucks) to traditional notions of male “hunters” and female “gatherers”.

Misconceptions on differences between the sexes have pervaded throughout history--as Saini notes, even Charles Darwin thought women to be intellectually inferior to men. As the science on differences between men and women becomes more inclusive of both female- and male-driven hypotheses, many old wives’ (or should I say old husbands’?) tales on differences from the sexes are being debunked or at a minimum facing increased scrutiny from the scientific community. While Saini herself notes that objectivity in such research is difficult to achieve, she is diligent in providing balanced descriptions of the science on observed differences between female and male behavior and aptitude, delving into whether perceived differences are a result of nature or nurture, or if they indeed exist in the first place.

While the introduction provides a solid background on the historical (and current) underrepresentation of women in science, and the individual chapters provide valuable insight into how “science got women wrong”, the link between these two concepts---that science in many cases may have “got women wrong” precisely because of the underrepresentation of women (and their hypotheses) in science---is something I would have liked to read more about, and required some reading between the lines at times.

Even in the relatively short book, the span of historic eras, disciplines, and cultural practices is vast. Brain imagery, anthropology, modern hunter-gatherer societies, foot binding, female genital mutilation, animal behavior, and differences in levels of promiscuity between sexes are some of the many subjects receiving attention. Whether you’re on the lookout for a battle of the sexes, a good old nature vs. nurture debate, or if you just want to find out what the Chinese hamster, ring-tailed lemur, and pygmy marmoset have in common, you’ll certainly find something of interest in this thought-provoking book.

The New York Times recently published an article about the latest health craze for "raw water", unfiltered, untreated, unsterilized spring water. Apparently people are rushing to get off the grid and drink water that hasn't been treated.

Luckily the Washington Post came to the rescue and published another article describing the risks and folly of this latest water craze, quoting our CDC collaborator Vince Hill. The comments on the NYT piece are also worth a read.

Every time I get off an airplane from a trip to a lower-income country the first thing I do is head to the drinking fountain and enjoy the incredible luxury of having clean water come directly out of the tap. Increases in life expectancy in the U.S. can largely be attributed to provision of clean water-- read a great popular article about it here, or an academic article here. Of course there are many issues with our nation's water systems, but having systems designed to remove pathogens is not one of them.